The whole point of free speech is not to make ideas exempt from criticism but to expose them to it.

Sunday, June 3, 2012

On self-defense...

From the Libertarian Party's platform:[Plank] 1.6 Self-Defense
The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual
rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against
aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be
aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the individual right
recognized by the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, and oppose the
prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense.
We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration
of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of
firearms or ammunition.

18 comments:

Bill F.
said...

Thank you Bob. While I don't necessarily disagree with the Libertarian position here, it has nothing to do with the Second Amendment as I understand it. The Second Amendment is intended to guarantee a "well regulated militia" state of the art armanent by guaranteeing individuals the right to purchace any weapons they can afford. That, at least in theory, would include having tactical nukes in your basement, and a supply of preditor drones we could all chip in on.

In other words, its overarching intent is for the group, not just the individual.

Now, Bob N., if you're opposed to Bob's Ellis and Fisher having preditor drones, grenades, and tactical nukes in their garages and warehouses, you are, in fact, pro-gun control.

There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

One version was passed by the Congress, while another is found in the copies distributed to the States and then ratified by them.

As passed by the Congress:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

From Newland: There are two commas in the former version above which make the proclamation virtually unintelligible, although the principle phrase, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is still fairly clear.

I prefer the latter version above, which appears to be what the framers intended. Within that version, people can try to make the second half dependent on the first, but I see no reason, based on grammar, to do so.

It appears to me that "The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Yes, a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. One of the ways to achieve that is to allow folks to keep and bear arms. Those who choose or are forced to join a militia thus have a better chance of being conversant in the shooting arts.

Parsed grammatically, the first clause does not eliminate personal ownership and control of firearms as proclaimed in the second clause.

I don't care who has drones or grenades. So, I'm in favor of arms-possession control when it comes to nukes. Y'got me.

In brief, I suppose my primary argument against Libertarianism is its focus on the individual as being the foundation of the human species. I will argue that the absolute minimum is not one of us, but rather, two of us. And even that is probably about 10 short. We are social animals and owe our success as a species to groups (via language and shared labor) not individuals.

Well not exactly. In both of her classics, (Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged) she has her heroes essentially forming elitist "labor unions," as a remedy for societies ills (which always struck me as paradoxical and ironic considering...)

Plus we studied Objectivism in Philosophy class at YC. It appears that perhaps it is you who haven't read the books. Either that, or their plot line has perhaps escaped you?

Here's a refresher from the Wiki:

"In the final section of the novel, Taggart discovers the truth about John Galt, who is leading an organized "strike" against those who use the force of law and moral guilt to confiscate the accomplishments of society's productive members. With the collapse of the nation and its rapacious government all but certain, Galt emerges to reconstruct a society that will celebrate individual achievement and enlightened self-interest, delivering a long speech (70 pages in the first edition) serving to explain the novel's theme and Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, in the book's longest single chapter.[21]"...

Moderator

Bob Newland posts topics to this forum. The Forum is based in Rapid City, So. Dak., so local references are almost always in the Black Hills of South Dakota.

A Creed

Politics was defined in an essay by the incomparable Lewis Lapham, at the time managing editor of Harper's magazine. He said, Politics is the continuous argument over who gets to do what to whom, for how long, and against what degree of dissent. It has yet to be said better.